While the aftermath of the Second World War was incredibly worse for Germany as a nation and people, I genuinely think the aftermath of the First led to a psychological scarring that was allowed to wreak havoc on its society to a far greater extent. After the Second, Germany was thoroughly defeated and completely occupied, split into two and neutered in a pretty total sense. As pointed out in the thread, it was a bit of a new beginning for both sides of the Iron Curtain where they could construct a concept of Germany from scratch (according to the wishes, politics, and circumstances of the ideological blocs they belonged to of course). I am of the opinion that in the aftermath of the First, the psychological damage of death and defeat had a far more profound effect on the psyche of the German population. You had revolutionaries rising against the order in the hopes of a new society, you had the utterly brutal backlash of the Freikorps and sections of returning veterans, you had the new Republicans attempting to straddle some sort of order precariously balanced against those who would overthrow it, and deep traumatic experiences throughout German society. This period gave birth to extreme violence, the Dolchstoßlegende, all
manners of fascisms (and eventually the NSDAP), and armed paramilitaries all over the country. The Weimar period was extremely turbulent and traumatic for the Germans and the NSDAP eventually successfully exploited these wounds to plunge the entire country down the road to mass genocide and "racial superiority" politics.
Klaus Theweleit's "Male Fantasies" explores the psychological mindset of the proto-fascist and far right members of groups like the Freikorps as they fought and murdered across Germany in the aftermath of the First World War and how it laid the ideological foundations for a national fascist movement. These people were deeply traumatized by the experience of the war and used it to forumulate a politics of hatred and revenge against whomever was deemed to be the enemy: the 'urbanite', the 'Other', the 'Bolshevik', etc.
I think people are interpreting this question as "Which war did more material damage to the German nation?" and the answer is exceedingly obvious. But, I think the psychological scars in society ran far deeper after 1918 (so much so they lead to National Socialism) with so much unresolved loss and deep humiliation. After the Second World War, the psychological scars were also immense and Germany has struggled (and still struggles) to grapple with the legacy of fascism but I think the actual extent of the scars and their effects have been far more subdued given the circumstances. Rather than Dolchstoßlegende, Kulturbolschewismus, and Entartete Kunst, we got the Historikerstreit and the Wehrmachtsausstellung. The psychological wounds of the First World War led to mass violence and eventually genocide, while the wounds of the Second led to a cultural soul searching and coming to grips with ideas of culpability and the role of the victim.
Of course, dealing with the Holocaust, mass destruction, the legacy of the Nazis and the idea of responsibility, occupation, rape, etc. we're all very deeply traumatic issues as a society and the fact that they had to deal with it split by the ideological lines of the Cold War only exacerbated the trauma. I'm arguing simply that the ramifications of the scars of the First allowed so much more damage and suffering in its society than in the aftermath of the Second.
One assumed it's form in guns and corpses, the other in academic debate and memorials. With that in mind, I think while the material effects on Germany were much less serious post 1918 than post 1945, a strong case can be made for more severe psychological issues in the body politic after the First World War.
manners of fascisms (and eventually the NSDAP), and armed paramilitaries all over the country. The Weimar period was extremely turbulent and traumatic for the Germans and the NSDAP eventually successfully exploited these wounds to plunge the entire country down the road to mass genocide and "racial superiority" politics.
Klaus Theweleit's "Male Fantasies" explores the psychological mindset of the proto-fascist and far right members of groups like the Freikorps as they fought and murdered across Germany in the aftermath of the First World War and how it laid the ideological foundations for a national fascist movement. These people were deeply traumatized by the experience of the war and used it to forumulate a politics of hatred and revenge against whomever was deemed to be the enemy: the 'urbanite', the 'Other', the 'Bolshevik', etc.
I think people are interpreting this question as "Which war did more material damage to the German nation?" and the answer is exceedingly obvious. But, I think the psychological scars in society ran far deeper after 1918 (so much so they lead to National Socialism) with so much unresolved loss and deep humiliation. After the Second World War, the psychological scars were also immense and Germany has struggled (and still struggles) to grapple with the legacy of fascism but I think the actual extent of the scars and their effects have been far more subdued given the circumstances. Rather than Dolchstoßlegende, Kulturbolschewismus, and Entartete Kunst, we got the Historikerstreit and the Wehrmachtsausstellung. The psychological wounds of the First World War led to mass violence and eventually genocide, while the wounds of the Second led to a cultural soul searching and coming to grips with ideas of culpability and the role of the victim.
Of course, dealing with the Holocaust, mass destruction, the legacy of the Nazis and the idea of responsibility, occupation, rape, etc. we're all very deeply traumatic issues as a society and the fact that they had to deal with it split by the ideological lines of the Cold War only exacerbated the trauma. I'm arguing simply that the ramifications of the scars of the First allowed so much more damage and suffering in its society than in the aftermath of the Second.
One assumed it's form in guns and corpses, the other in academic debate and memorials. With that in mind, I think while the material effects on Germany were much less serious post 1918 than post 1945, a strong case can be made for more severe psychological issues in the body politic after the First World War.
Last edited:
